• overcast5348@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Fahrenheit: let’s use “really cold weather” as zero and really hot weather as 100.

    I don’t really have a horse in this race but this logic doesn’t seem legit to me.

    How is -17°C really cold weather AND 37°C really hot weather?

    One is actively trying to kill you if weren’t already dead by the time the weather got that bad. The other just makes your nuts stick to your thighs – if you’re in a humid place.

    I’d agree with the logic if 100F was equal to something like 65°C. 🤷‍♂️

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        maybe it’s a climate thing? Where do you live, here in ameica it’s quite literally the best way to describe it. We see swings below 0f at the coldest parts of the year, and upwards of 100+ in the hottest parts of the year.

        • C126@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          So why not make the temperature go to the hottest? Let me guess, 0 isn’t the coldest either in America, right? It’s just so arbitrary, and pure cope to say it’s the best way to describe temperature.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s just so arbitrary

            All of them are. The decision to use water at all is completely arbitrary. Even Kelvin and Rankine are completely arbitrary: the “width” of the degrees is not defined by a physical factor, but relative to an entirely arbitrary concept.

            • C126@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Technically all arbitrary, but Fahrenheit is definitely on a whole different level of arbitrary.

              Celsius - 0 = precise freezing point of water and 100 = precise boiling point

              Kelvin - same as C, but shifted so 0 is the precise lowest possible temperature

              Fahrenheit - 0 is the imprecise freezing point of some random brine mixture, 100 is the imprecise average body temperature of the developer

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                100 is the imprecise average body temperature of the developer

                That’s a myth. It’s no more true than the myth that it was the body temperature of horses, or that the scale was designed to reflect how humans experience the weather. (It happens to reflect how humans experience the weather, but this was an incidental characteristic and not the purpose for which the scale was designed.)

                The Fahrenheit scale starts to make sense when you realize he was a geometrist. It turns out that a base-10 system of angular measurement objectively sucks ass, so the developer wasn’t particularly interested geometrically irrelevant numbers like “100”, but in geometrically interesting numbers like “180”. He put 180 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water. (212F - 32F = 180F)

                After settling on the “width” of his degree, he measured down to a repeatable origin point, which happened to be 32 of his degrees below the freezing point of water. He wanted a dial thermometer to point straight down in ice water, straight up in boiling water, and to use the same angular degrees as a protractor.

                The calibration point he chose wasn’t the “freezing point” of the “random brine mixture”. The brine was water, ice, and ammonium chloride, which together form a frigorific mixture due to the phase change of the water. As the mixture is cooled, it resists getting colder than 0F due to the phase change of the water to ice. As it is warmed, it resists getting warmer than 0F due to the phase change of ice to water. (Obviously, it can’t maintain this relationship indefinitely. But so long as there is ice and liquid brine, the brine will maintain this temperature.) This makes it repeatable, in labs around the world.

                And it wasn’t a “random” brine mixture: it was the coldest and most stable frigorific mixture known to the scientific community.

                This criticism of Fahrenheit is borne of simple ignorance: people don’t understand how or why it was developed, and assume he was an idiot. He wasn’t. He had very good reasons for his choices.

                • C126@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  That was a long way of saying what I said, you just don’t see faranheit as ludicrously out of date, while I (and most of the world) do. Live your life as you wish friend. It’s a random brine mixture. Maybe it was less random back then, but now it’s an arbitrary mixture of water and salts in arbitrary ratios. Deal with it. Fahrenheit sucks.

    • phobiac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It makes no sense because that’s not what the 0 of the Fahrenheit scale is. The 0 point is the coldest an ammonium chloride brine mixture can be cooled to. The 90 point was an estimated average for human body temperature (it was adjusted up over time). These were chosen because the goal of the scale was to provide a way for people to have a defined temperature scale with a range and degree size that could be reliably reproduced without passing around standardized tools. 100 is really hot because human bodies were used as a reference for the high end, but the low end has nothing to do with the human body.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        an ammonium chloride brine

        At what molar concentration? Was it just as much NH4Cl as he could dissolve at ambient temperature and pressure?

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        but like isn’t that the whole point of celsius? all you need to calibrate a C thermometer is some water: when it starts freezing it’s 0°C and when it’s boiling it’s 100°C, super simple and accessible.

        It’s not like “the estimated average human body temperature” is particularly accurate, and surely no matter what you mix into water it won’t magically boil at the same temperature regardless of air pressure?

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Geometric construction plays a role in there as well: the 180 degrees between the boiling point and the freezing point of water was not accidental.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Every time a heat wave brings 100F, the news starts reporting about old people dying. Every time the temperatures reach zero, same thing.

      Personally, I can handle the cold much easier than the heat. I get stupid-brain working more than 30 minutes at 95F. Another 15 minutes and I can’t catch my breath, lose fine motor control, and start feeling faint. Drenching myself in water - the colder the better - every 20 minutes or so is the only way I’ve found to be productive above 100F. I feel like 100F is actively trying to kill me.

      0F is where it starts getting difficult for me to stay warm without an additional heat source.

      • overcast5348@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Lmao are you a penguin or something? Please tell me that you’re exaggerating to make a point and aren’t seriously saying that you’re capable of staying warm at -10°C (14°F) “without an additional heat source.”

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I mean, I have clothes. Long underwear? Layers? Coats, gloves, hats, scarves?

          They say you can always put on more clothes if you’re cold, but that’s not really true. Insulation adds bulk, and bulk reduces mobility. Around 0F is where I start to have real trouble wearing enough clothing to stay warm while still being able to perform the activity that has me outside in that weather. Somewhere around 0F, clothing doesn’t really cut it, and I need shelter or additional heat.

          • overcast5348@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            That’s a lot of moved goalposts to justify the weird temperature scale logic but okay.

            You’ve essentially justified that 0F and 100F are what they are because some old people died when it was 100F (most people, including the old are perfectly fine at this temperature all around the world) and because you can manage at 0F while wearing a ton of layers and not need a heat source (do all old people manage to survive just fine at 10F or 20F by just putting on some layers?).

            Either way, this pointless conversation had gone on for way too long. Have a good day! :)

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      0f is pretty fucking cold outside, your nose hairs start to freeze in this weather. It’s genuinely uncomfortable and you can die pretty easily if you aren’t prepared for it. 100f is similar, anything over 100f and you start to get into straight heat exhaustion and potential heat stroke region of danger. it’s really not that bad? Sure if you’re like, standing outside doing nothing in the shade, you’ll be fine, but do some labor and you might meet the fabled heat exhaustion fairy.

      Obviously, when you convert it to celsius, it seems really fucking weird, That’s pretty normal for conversions though. Like just to be clear, if you round these numbers, they make more sense. -20 c and “damn it’s really cold out” you round up to 40c and “damn it’s really hot out”

      also im not really sure what you’re trying to say, but 0f isn’t like, going to kill you kill you, it’s not pleasant, but in the right attire you’ll be fine. -20 f and you start getting closer, -40f and you really start having to think about it. Are you aussie or something? This scale seems really shifted up to me. “nuts sticking weather” is like 80f and humid here.

      • overcast5348@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m saying that 0F is waaaaaaay more dangerous than 100F so the logic of those particular temperatures being the 0-100 ends of the scale can’t be explained by how dangerous they each are.

        Almost everyone would be fine staying outside for 30 minutes at 100F without no external help (shade, cool drinks etc). Almost nobody would be fine after staying outside at 0F without external help (parka, thermals etc).

        To me, with absolutely no data, it feels lie:

        • 0F is as dangerous as 140F (you’re long dead if you’re outside in both cases)
        • 100F is as dangerous as 40F (mildly uncomfortable but safe for a while)

        So calling 0F and 100F both “really dangerous” and using that to justify them being the respective points of 0 and 100 disingenuous. Like, use Fahrenheit if that’s what you’re used to - I use it too because that’s what I’m used to. But I don’t explain the insane system with “it’s because the two ends are reallllly dangerous.”